So a four corners plant was found to have created acid rain in another state or country outside of their state of operation?
I don't think it points to one particular plant but it does show the causation and contributors to acid rain. They cannot be explained by natural causes alone.
Are you suggesting that the plants such as the four corners plant do not contribute to pollution and acid rain which effects other parts of the environment in and outside of the state in which the plants are located?
I don't think it points to one particular plant but it does show the causation and contributors to acid rain. They cannot be explained by natural causes alone.
Are you suggesting that the plants such as the four corners plant do not contribute to pollution and acid rain which effects other parts of the environment in and outside of the state in which the plants are located?
Oh please don't read more into my position than it's face value. I am a simpleton. So no suggestion at all.
I asked for a case where they or another company directly affected the "air quality" or "climate" in another state. Not a contribution that "may" "could" or "is believed" to be associate with poor "air quality" or "climate". I was looking for a contribution that was actually linked to an event where the "air quality" and or "climate" of another state was measured documenting that link.
Oh please don't read more into my position than it's face value. I am a simpleton. So no suggestion at all.
I asked for a case where they or another company directly affected the "air quality" or "climate" in another state. Not a contribution that "may" "could" or "is believed" to be associate with poor "air quality" or "climate". I was looking for a contribution that was actually linked to an event where the "air quality" and or "climate" of another state was measured documenting that link.
You're obviously not a simpleton but I suspect you are being deliberately obtuse. Your wish for a direct link to a companies specific output of pollutant to the air quality/climate/whatever of another state is like proving that someones lung cancer is definitively caused by their smoking a particular brand of cigarettes IMO.
But hey, lots of people sleep better at night not worrying about such things.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 03-01-2016).]
You're obviously not a simpleton but I suspect you are being deliberately obtuse. Your wish for a direct link to a companies specific output of pollutant to the air quality/climate/whatever of another state is like proving that someones lung cancer is definitively caused by their smoking a particular brand of cigarettes IMO.
But hey, lots of people sleep better at night not worrying about such things.
A lot of Government Authority is based on the interstate commerce. Demonstrating a release to the environment is one thing, but demonstrating a relationship between the point of origin it's final destination is another.
There are many documented cases where pollutants were release into the air. Likewise, there is ample documentation that supports links between pollutants and the potential risks to humans and the environment. But, with the convictions of those who believe that there are broad reaching potential threats that extend beyond the state they were released, I simply asked for a documented incident that shows harm to the environment and residents of another state beyond it's point of origin....
Remember, our discussion began with the EPA's right/authority to enforce enacted laws.
It sounds like you might find your thoughts beings articulated in this brief Power Point presentation (10 slides in an online "slideshow" style presentation)
Nice catch, on that new temperature data "bombshell" from NOAA, as reported by the Conservative Tribune.
Here's another new breakout story that "corroborates" that report from the Conservative Tribune. This one is in the National Enquirer:
Supreme Court Justice Scalia — Murdered By A Hooker
In a bombshell world exclusive, The National ENQUIRER has learned that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s death was a highly planned “political assassination” orchestrated by the CIA and carried out by a $2,000-a-night hooker! A top Washington, D.C. source said the Feb. 13 death of the 79-year-old jurist at a remote Texas ranch just 15 miles from Mexico was part of a “shocking conspiracy that tracks back to the CIA and the White House!"
Climate Change: The Greatest-Ever Conspiracy Against The Taxpayer http://www.breitbart.com/lo...ok&utm_medium=social Climate change is the biggest scam in the history of the world – a $1.5 trillion-a-year conspiracy against the taxpayer, every cent, penny and centime of which ends in the pockets of the wrong kind of people, none of which goes towards a cause remotely worth funding, all of it a complete and utter waste.
Pro Global warming types. - Works in the field of "climate change scientist" and has banked there credibility and marketability on it. - Work for a "non-" profit group where they profit for the ongoing effort to remain effective and rendering profitable organizations ineffective and unprofitable.... - Individuals who agree that our activities should not erode the environment we depend upon to live, but has to rely on the facts presented by the 2 aforementioned groups.
Anti Global warming types. - Works in an industry that would be more profitable if not for the regulations that suck all the profits out of being profitable. - Work for a law firm or hired by one as an "expert/scientist" in an effort to make sure those non-profits remain non-profits. - Individuals who agree that our activities should not be severely limited by excessive regulations , but has to rely on the facts presented by the 2 aforementioned groups.
I'm of the opinion that gives you every right to the cleanest air and the most freedom you can exercise without infringing on the rights of others. If you don't want to inhale toxic air filled with crap that is not good for your health, stay indoor where you can control the air quality and don't fart, sneeze, burp, exhale or sweat....
The world is filled with some seriously nasty crap and trying to remove it from our environment by controlling what your neighbor eats, drives and cools his house with is just foolish. It's one thing to regulate the careless dumping of chemicals, waste water, gases and emissions, but it's BS to demonize the average individual for the small foot print they make during their short lifespan on this planet.....
If I chose to drive an all electric vehicle, I will do so on my own terms.
I have chosen to change the refrigerants I use. not because they are better, but simply because they are not regulated and I can service them myself.
I don't care if cow farts contribute to global warming. But I'll eat more beef if that will help reduce said bovine emissions.
My Mountaineer gets 10mpg going down hill. To help the environment, just remove those speed limit signs I will offset the volume of my emission by reducing the time spent spewing them. I gave up smoking for my daughters so I don't need a pat on the back for that. It's more about their health and well being than yours or my mine ...
My Fiero gets Zero mpg and burns no fuel..... Don't get excited, I just haven't fixed it yet. but when I do, you'll be glad the mountaineer is my daily driver.
It's not that I don't care about the environment, It's that I very little time to make the best of it and it will be here long after I'm gone. If you think that our current environmental regulations and policies are working, good. Becoming an example of self oppression is not what I plan on teaching my daughters...
Oh, and I think there should be incentives to create alternatives instead of penalties for improving existing technologies. If you want to see an explosion in alternative energy and transportation, just loosen up the patent laws an make it easier for the average Joe/Jane to compete in the industry instead of fighting a patent protected shelf ornament.
Oh, and I think there should be incentives to create alternatives instead of penalties for improving existing technologies. If you want to see an explosion in alternative energy and transportation, just loosen up the patent laws an make it easier for the average Joe/Jane to compete in the industry instead of fighting a patent protected shelf ornament.
I don't know hardly anything about patents and patent laws and regulations. But this seems "problematic" to me. Do you have a "source" (two is better than one; etc.) that would serve as an example of how this would help to create "alternatives"..? If the patent laws are changed to have this "loosen up" effect, would that not be as likely to create disincentives for someone with a new idea to pursue it all the way to a marketable product or process?
Is a government administered and government funded incentive involving subsidies to lower the retail price of an innovative low-carbon energy technology, so that it can achieve an initial penetration of a fossil-fuel dominated marketplace on the basis of competition, instead of mandates--is that possible under the "jmclemore administration"..? If it is possible, is it actually preferable or more equitable than having a carbon tax regime that would levy a tax per unit of energy that is higher for a fuel source like coal or oil, and lower for any new or innovative energy source that "models out" as producing fewer carbon emissions per unit of energy?
How do you decide on a program or policy that some are likely to perceive as an "incentive", and others are likely to perceive as a "penalty" or a "disincentive", depending on how it fits their current circumstances? How do you manage to create a program or policy that is perceived as an "incentive" by someone with a new twist on wind or solar energy, without drawing protest from others--from anyone who is already tied to one of the fossil fuel industries--that what you are creating is actually a "penalty" or a "disincentive" that works against certain (if not all) enterprises that are currently using any of the fossil fuels as an energy source?
Lets deal with reality just for 1 moment.... Yes I am side stepping much of what you replied with.
In reality this is not a competition between ICE and electric vehicles. Nor is it between solar, wind, etc and Coal. The reality is that the alternatives are either less efficient or more exspensive.
No amount of subsidy will making it more efficient or cost effective. Get the politics, subsidies and regulations out of the way so competition can drive results instead of subsidies driving preferences......
There are too many people, politicians and puppets trying to engineer an outcome instead of just recognizing innovation. If these alternative can not compete at the same oppressive level we place on current producers, propping them up with tax dollars will not create a sustainable resource for our future. Besides, you would think a car that has zero emissions would already have the advantage considering the cost of compliance shouldered by traditional technologies. I'm not against innovation, I'm against creating an illusion presented as an innovation. Until, it can out perform current methods and technology, it's not an innovation. It's a retreat from it.
Which brings me back to the "man made global warming". after all we have done to fight the "problem", when are the leading scientist on global warming going to show results that justifies the effort. Our transportation systems globally have improved far beyond the 70's, 80's and 90's. Factory emissions have improved from no control to almost complete control, capture and disposal. Power plants as well. We have advanced so far you would think someone deserves credit for creating an environment more friendly to life than I was born into. But no, today's youth think it's worse than ever by our education system.
It's fine to expect things to improve and outperform the previous year(s) and Decades. But it is nothing short of an assault to fund alternatives without also funding innovations and advancements in current technologies. If you can not fund both, don't fund either.
Put a check (or several) on the table and award it to those who can produce the best results. If the results is environmental impact, fine, measure it, reward it and publish the winner..
The whole topic of anthropogenic global warming itself is polluted by interests on all sides. So much so, the debate itself has probably contributed more to higher air temperatures than many of the alleged causes.
Clouds Aren’t Helping to Slow Global Warming as Much as "We" Thought, Study Says
The reflective power of clouds may be less effective at counteracting global warming than previously thought, according to new research.
Scientists behind the new research looked at clouds that contain both liquid and ice water, known as mixed-phase clouds. Most climate models suggest that clouds will better be able to reflect light into space as global warming speeds up the melting of ice water into a liquid in coming decades. Liquid water tends to reflect more light back into space than ice.
But the new research, published in the journal Science, suggests that most models overestimate how much ice currently exists in mixed-phase clouds. That finding could dramatically increase the forecast speed of temperature rise in the coming decades, with temperatures more than 1°C higher than anticipated in current models, according to the study.
The finding suggests that it will be harder for countries from around the world to keep temperatures from rising less than 2°C (3.6°F) above preindustrial levels by 2100. That’s the goal that countries agreed to at a U.N. conference in Paris in December.
“The evidence is piling up against an overall stabilizing cloud feedback,” study co-author Mark Zelinka, of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, said in a statement. “Clouds do not seem to want to do us any favors when it comes to limiting global warming.”
Sarah "the Paleolithic woman" Palin and Bill Nye, "the science guy", take opposite sides in a new film presentation that is described here (on NBC News online) as an "Anti-Climate Change" film.
Well, once again the courts and an unlimited government budget will be used to bash companies into subservience. This kind of government thuggery makes me very ill.
Well, once again the courts and an unlimited government budget will be used to bash companies into subservience. This kind of government thuggery makes me very ill.
About time. They are aware and they were more concerned with their bottom line. Makes me feel very good.
That is pure speculation and you know it. No one ANYWHERE has proven a link between burning fossil fuels and global warming. What on earth makes you believe that the oil companies have discovered something that other scientist have not?
This is the first shot across the bow from governments with an agenda to pursue. Your glee makes me wretch.
It's not speculation. It's documented. Sorry for making you ill or wretch. They did the same thing that the tobacco companies did. They researched and then hid the research while denying the results. It's not hard to look up.
I am persuaded by what I have read and seen (TV, video) that the link is both real and significant enough to warrant the mitigation strategies (reducing greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels and other human activities).
And I can't recall ever seeing any of the Al Gore movie. I probably have seen some clips, but I really don't remember whether that was from the Al Gore movie or some other presentation. I know for sure that I never took the time to view the entire Al Gore movie.
So I consider myself as free of the Al Gore contamination as almost anyone could possibly be. Anyone that did not stop looking at TV and online video or go entirely off of the grid.
I am persuaded by what I have read and seen (TV, video) that the link is both real and significant enough to warrant the mitigation strategies (reducing greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels and other human activities).
And I can't recall ever seeing any of the Al Gore movie. I probably have seen some clips, but I really don't remember whether that was from the Al Gore movie or some other presentation. I know for sure that I never took the time to view the entire Al Gore movie.
So I consider myself as free of the Al Gore contamination as almost anyone could possibly be. Anyone that did not stop looking at TV and online video or go entirely off of the grid.
And many people share your concern and belief. My beef is that certain states Attorney Generals have colluded with certain environmentalists to target ExxonMobil in a roundabout Salem witch trial which is wrong.
There ought to be a way for a company (like ExxonMobil) to reach an accord with the federal government involving a quid pro quo. The company agrees to support the federal government's objectives in the way of greenhouse gas abatement, and the federal government immunizes the company against this kind of probe or lawsuit which is based on the "what did the company know and when did they know it" kind of thinking.
There ought to be a way for a company (like ExxonMobil) to reach an accord with the federal government involving a quid pro quo. The company agrees to support the federal government's objectives in the way of greenhouse gas abatement, and the federal government immunizes the company against this kind of probe or lawsuit which is based on the "what did the company know and when did they know it" kind of thinking.
Much easier said than done.
When the mafia did this it was called protection extortion. But I guess it's okay if the thugs are working for the Federal Government.
Originally posted by jmclemore: I think if there were any substantial evidence that human activities are directly affecting global climate change and temperature, It could be presented in a way that the average citizen would understand.
This is a "nice" little primer or basic tutorial page on the Greenhouse Effect. The text is straightforward and not all that long, and it is augmented with some explanatory diagrams and images. One of the images is animated. https://www.ucar.edu/learn/1_3_1.htm
The material on this page does not have anything (or hardly anything) in the way of "attribution". Are human activities the significant factors that have been and are presently continuing to cause an increase in the concentrations of the various kinds of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? What are the significance of the human factors, vs all of the natural processes that contribute to the Greenhouse Effect? That is "attribution".
The material on this page is not sufficient (in and of itself) to conclude that greenhouse gases are causing global warming in quantitative terms of how slowly or rapidly; i.e., how many degrees or fractions of a degree Celsius of warming over a given period of time.
But for anyone who wants a better understanding of the Greenhouse Effect, I think this would be a satisfying little "read".
"The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research is a nonprofit consortium of more than 100 North American member colleges and universities focused on research and training in the atmospheric and related Earth system sciences. UCAR manages the National Center for Atmospheric Research with sponsorship by the National Science Foundation. Through our community programs, UCAR supports and extends the capabilities of our academic consortium." http://www2.ucar.edu/about-us
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-17-2016).]
I hope that jmclemore looks in here soon and checks out the "tutorial" that I posted (my last post, just before this one). Aside from whether man-made global warming is "true" or "false", I am interested in what the "non-scientist community" (that includes me) thinks of the style and clarity of this long page about the Greenhouse Effect. Did this page from UCAR (University Corporation for Atmospheric Research) explain anything about the Greenhouse Effect in a way that wasn't already familiar to "you"..? IMADTK; Inquiring Minds Are Dying To Know.
Pennock's correspondent avengador1 just posted something about Antarctica, which I will respond to in a moment, but first, an update about the Arctic from one of the NOAA's web pages, called "Arctic Report Card: Update for 2015". These are my words; I am just paraphrasing some of the text on this NOAA webpage:
quote
During 2015, the Arctic ocean areas covered by ice (sea ice) "maxed out" on February 25. The areas covered by sea ice at this yearly winter maximum were the lowest in the nearly 40-year history of satellite observations, which goes back as far as 1979. Melting occurred over more than 50% of the Greenland Ice Sheet for the first time since the also exceptional melting of 2012, and glaciers terminating in the ocean showed an increase in ice velocity and decrease in area; i.e., the glaciers in Greenland are melting more rapidly.
As the Arctic sea ice disappears, it does not contribute directly to global sea level rise; i.e., "What happens when an ice cube suspended in a glass of water melts...". But this is an indicator of a warming climate trend in the Arctic. Greenland ice is land ice, and it contributes directly to rising sea levels as it disappears. The Greenland Ice Sheet is second only to Antarctica, in terms of where most of the land ice is located around the world.
As far as the new post about the Antarctic--from avengador1--the blog that it references is ludicrous. It starts with the traditional and highly ceremonial "Lib-hater" bloviations about Al Gore, which is a name that's never been referenced in any peer-reviewed scientific journal that I ever saw. As for myself, I am not a quote scientist unquote, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express and while I was there, I browsed some of the peer-reviewed science journals like Nature that offer free Internet access, which is not uncommon these days.
After the obligatory reference to Al Gore, the blog from Right Wing News (following the link posted by avengador1) segues to some grade school level calling out of "Libs", which is deliciously ironic, considering that some of the Pennock's members that are the most dogmatic and prolific in ranting about "Libs" (liberals) are about as well prepared to analyze a peer-reviewed journal article on climate research in scientific terms as I am prepared to take the place of any of the players on the fields of tonight's Major League Baseball contests.
But to go to the heart of the matter, the material that was just posted by the Orlando area's Pennock's correspondent, which claims to "debunk global warming", is a deceptive spin piece. It's based on a recent study from NASA. I found my way (without any assistance from the Right Wing News blog, which didn't even bother to specifically identify the report) to a summary page about the report, also from NASA. This is from the summary page:
quote
A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.
The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.
According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.
I don't know about "your" eyeballs, but when I look at the last two sentences, I am calling it, for the purpose of some rough calculations, an ice sheet gain during recent years of about 100 billion tons per year.
Holy smokes! A HUNDRED BILLION TONS MORE ICE around the South Pole every freakin' year. That's a really big effin' deal, right? (~Penn Jillette.)
It means that during recent years, the ice sheet increased in mass every year by about 0.001 percent or a thousand times less than one percent of where it currently stands. If the Antarctic ice sheet were to continue to add mass at this same steady rate of 100 billion tons per year, it would take the next 1000 years for it to enlarge its total mass by one percent, above where it stands today; and the next 10,000 years to enlarge its total mass by 10 percent above where it stands today.
I am basing this on some easy online calculations that I made. I started with one data point, that the Antarctic ice sheet, as it stands today, is represented by a total volume of about 30 million cubic kilometers of glacial ice. Then I found some recent references online about the density of glacial ice. This is "tricky", because the density of glacial ice depends on whether it is near the surface of the glacier, or buried deep below the surface of the glacier. The deeper the ice, the more it is compressed by the weight of the ice above it, and that increases its density. But I have a density figure for glacial ice of about 1000 kilograms per cubic meter of volume.
For the sake of erring in favor of Right Wing News, I slashed that density figure, taking it down from 1000 kilograms to just 300 kilograms of glacial ice mass per cubic meter of volume. This is giving the best accommodation to the "good folks" at Right Wing News, because I am using a conservative or low-end estimate for the mass of the Antarctic ice sheet as it stands today. In this way, I am representing the recent upwards trend for the mass of the Antarctic ice sheet--as reported in the new NASA study, and which is the trend that Right Wing News has seized upon as its new "talking point" for debunking global warming--in the best possible light. Otherwise, the numerical significance of this recent upwards trend would be even smaller, proportionally, than the 0.001 percent (one thousand times less than one percent) enlargement of the ice sheet mass per year.
Now for what Right Wing News chose not to report:
quote
But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to [NASA lead study researcher] Zwally. “If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years -- I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.”
This is how the NASA summary page ends:
quote
“The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”
“The new study highlights the difficulties of measuring the small changes in ice height happening in East Antarctica,” said Ben Smith, a glaciologist with the University of Washington in Seattle who was not involved in Zwally’s study.
"Doing altimetry accurately for very large areas is extraordinarily difficult, and there are measurements of snow accumulation that need to be done independently to understand what’s happening in these places,” Smith said.
To help accurately measure changes in Antarctica, NASA is developing the successor to the ICESat mission, ICESat-2, which is scheduled to launch in 2018. “ICESat-2 will measure changes in the ice sheet within the thickness of a No. 2 pencil,” said Tom Neumann, a glaciologist at Goddard and deputy project scientist for ICESat-2. “It will contribute to solving the problem of Antarctica’s mass balance by providing a long-term record of elevation changes.”
Abstract: Polar temperatures over the last several million years have, at times, been slightly warmer than today, yet global mean sea level has been 6–9 metres higher as recently as the Last Interglacial (130,000 to 115,000 years ago) and possibly higher during the Pliocene epoch (about three million years ago). In both cases the Antarctic ice sheet has been implicated as the primary contributor, hinting at its future vulnerability. Here we use a model coupling ice sheet and climate dynamics—including previously underappreciated processes linking atmospheric warming with hydrofracturing of buttressing ice shelves and structural collapse of marine-terminating ice cliffs—that is calibrated against Pliocene and Last Interglacial sea-level estimates and applied to future greenhouse gas emission scenarios. Antarctica has the potential to contribute more than a metre of sea-level rise by 2100 and more than 15 metres by 2500, if emissions continue unabated. In this case atmospheric warming will soon become the dominant driver of ice loss, but prolonged ocean warming will delay its recovery for thousands of years.
If anyone could intelligently put all this together, back from the point where I started here, with the Arctic Report Card 2015, and still believe that Right Wing News has actually debunked the potential for negative impacts that is comprised by the general scientific consensus on global warming, then I think it would be very reasonable to surmise that President Lincoln thoroughly enjoyed his legendary evening at Ford's Theatre.
"You make the call"
Here's what two well known but not peer-reviewed science venues have to say about the new report in Nature:
References for my own calculations about the significance of recent mass gains reported by NASA for the Antarctic ice sheet:
"Quick Facts on Ice Sheets" from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), which is supported by NASA, NOAA, the National Science Foundation and other federal agencies via competitive grants and contracts https://nsidc.org/cryospher...facts/icesheets.html
"Density assumptions for converting geodetic glacier volume change to mass change" M. Huss; Department of Geosciences, University of Fribourg, 1700 Fribourg, Switzerland The Cryosphere; May 27, 2013 http://www.the-cryosphere.n...13/tc-7-877-2013.pdf
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-18-2016).]
rinselberg, I'm going to ask some simple questions and please respond with simple answers. I have a rule I live by that I learned 30yrs ago. The 2 people to avoid are those who try to dazzle you with their brilliance or Baffle you with their BS. It's easier to trust those who Keep It Short n Simple. Especially on topics, like this one, that do have complex natural and (alleged) unnatural processes.
At what altitude is the highest concentration of CO2 measured?.
This is important to the discussion because the environment provides for the processes that respond to those gases and their affects. Since we are talking about the affect of greenhouse gasses on the environment, Lets begin in the environment where they are being measured in their highest concentration.
I may come back to this later. I'm about to leave for an appointment. But a common term among global warming researchers is that Carbon Dioxide is a "Well Mixed Greenhouse Gas". The implication is that wherever it is emitted--U.S., China, India, Brazil--it spreads evenly all around the world. As for how the concentration (ppm) would range (vary) from ground level upwards into the stratosphere--I can't consider it right now. What that is, or how the "experts" fold that into their climate models.
The most puzzling statement from Richard Lindzen in the "Prager U" (~avengador1) comes at 3:06 into the 5:04 long video segment.
Lindzen has divided the "players" into three groups. Group 1 are the scientists who are confident that human activities are a major cause of significant global warming. Group 2 are the scientists who are skeptical that human activities are actually a major factor, or even skeptical that there is any appreciable global warming. Group 3 includes publicly elected or appointed officials, the news media and advocacy groups.
It's well known that the three groups are not perfectly orthogonal That is a math geek's way of saying that there are those people who cross over group boundaries. Some scientists have become advocates for one kind of policy direction or another, without giving up their "day jobs" as scientists. But on the whole, I think the idea of these three "kind of" separate groups is sensible as a first approximation.
At 3:06 Lindzen begins a statement "Most importantly, the scenario that the burning of fossil fuels leads to catastrophe isn't part of what either group asserts."
He's talking about the scientists--the "AGW believers" (Group 1) and the "AGW skeptics" (Group 2).
That strikes me as a false note. What does it mean without some specifics in terms of a definition for "catastrophe"..? And it's not hard to find scientists that are being quoted by name in the news media in connection with statements that are (more or less) along the lines of "Humanity as we know it will soon be up the proverbial creek without a paddle, if there are not timely and significant reductions in the world's production of carbon emissions from fossil fuels."
How many more of these videos do I need to complete in order to receive a handsome diploma that is suitable for wall display from Prager U..?
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-23-2016).]
I may come back to this later. I'm about to leave for an appointment. But a common term among global warming researchers is that Carbon Dioxide is a "Well Mixed Greenhouse Gas". The implication is that wherever it is emitted--U.S., China, India, Brazil--it spreads evenly all around the world.
It's time to separate CO2 from the argument of Global Warming Climate Change. I admit I am not highly educate enough to uproot all of the arguments for CO2 related Climate Change. But the simplest experiments that demonstrate the weight of CO2 compare to the air around it. Those simple experiments do not simply imply, they demonstrate the characteristics of CO2 in gas form. It settles to the lowest point. Though it can be carried by wind currents, much of it sinks to the lowest level. Most of our low areas are filled water. Have been looking for co2 measurements in land masses that are below sea level to see if there was more than found than above sea level. While people have spent much of their lives fighting CO2 in the atmosphere that that might not consider the direct effect related breathing and health.
One of the questions that has been put to me in the course of this discussion is about the spatial distribution of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and specifically, about how carbon dioxide is distributed vertically in the atmosphere, from ground level upwards; to wit (as I am prone to say):
If anyone wants a comprehensive online "read" about Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and the Greenhouse Effect, you can't go wrong with this PDF-format "NASA Press Kit". It's actually fairly straightforward and easy to follow. It's a primer for a general audience. It's not like most peer-reviewed journal articles that present challenging math and statistical calculations and lots of "insider" jargon. Not here. Just work your way down past all of the spacecraft-related stuff until you find the section that starts with "Why Study Carbon Dioxide?" in large, bold lettering.
This is an excerpt:
quote
Carbon dioxide is the most significant human-produced greenhouse gas. (Greenhouse gases contribute to warming Earth’s atmosphere by absorbing radiation emitted from Earth’s surface.) It is also the principal human-produced driver of changes to Earth’s climate.
Carbon dioxide is a long-lived gas in Earth’s atmosphere. While more than half of the carbon dioxide emitted is removed from the atmosphere within a century, about 20 percent remains in the atmosphere for thousands of years.
Though generated at Earth’s surface, carbon dioxide rises into the free troposphere, which begins at roughly 1.2 miles (2 kilometers) above the surface. There, winds (weather systems and jet streams) transport it around the globe, across oceans and continents.
Carbon dioxide is heavier than air. If the atmosphere were perfectly calm, without winds and updrafts, all CO2 emissions from human activities would be concentrated in a dense layer close to the ground, and close to their point of origin. CO2 emissions from road vehicles and ships would be concentrated near major highways and traffic zones, or along shipping lanes. The only exception would be air traffic, but if the atmosphere were perfectly calm, even the CO2 emissions from aircraft engines would eventually sink to ground level.
The reality is that CO2 emissions from human activities and natural processes are spread all around the globe and into every part of the atmosphere, from ground level all the way upwards and beyond the stratosphere, all the way outwards to the boundary where the last vestiges of atmosphere end and interplanetary space begins.
Another excerpt:
quote
Locating the sources and sinks of carbon dioxide is a daunting assignment. Concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide rarely vary by more than two percent from one pole of Earth to the other (that’s eight parts per million by volume out of a total concentration of about 400 parts per million). In addition, the global, rapid transport of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere makes it difficult to spot sources and sinks.
Scientific models have shown that we can reduce uncertainties in our understanding of the balance of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere by up to 80 percent if data from the existing ground-based carbon dioxide monitoring network can be augmented with high-resolution, global, space- based measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration accurate to 0.3 to 0.5 percent (about one to two parts per million) on regional to continental scales.
The Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 will have--not "will have", but "has"--it went operational in 2014--just such a level of precision.
This is a color-coded world map of CO2 levels in the troposphere (lower atmosphere) derived from OCO-2 observational data. You can see that the CO2 is distributed fairly evenly across the entire globe. There were a few spots where the measured concentration was as low as 387 ppm (parts per million) and a few spots as high as 402 ppm. For most places, it was close to or just above 400 ppm. This data is from 2014.
OCO-2 observational data files are freely available online for downloading. I have not attempted it, because it looks to be something of a "project" requiring some basic programming skills and/or user level knowledge of some kind of database or spreadsheet software. I have no doubt that there are Pennock's members who could download and process this data if they wanted to do it.
The ACE (Atmospheric Chemistry Experiment) satellite (funded mostly by the Canadian Space Agency) provided measurements of carbon dioxide at the most distant extremes of the atmosphere.
CO2 concentration at 100 kilometers altitude (~62 miles) measured by ACE (blue circles) and predicted by a model of the chemistry and physics of the global upper atmosphere (green crosses). The purple line shows the linear trend of the ACE data. Credit: U.S. Naval Research Laboratory
My takeaway is that CO2 levels at 62 miles high--at the very edge of space--are not as concentrated, compared to the lower atmosphere, but are still appreciable. You can see this marker at about 205 ppm in 2004, and climbing steadily to about 225 ppm in 2012. So to my "eyes", this high altitude concentration of CO2 has been tracking at somewhat above half the amount of CO2 in the lower atmosphere.
The oldest continual monitoring station for atmospheric carbon dioxide--starting in the 1950s before there was any satellite data--is near the peak of the Mauna Loa volcano in Hawaii.
quote
Mauna Loa Observatory (MLO) is a premier atmospheric research facility that has been continuously monitoring and collecting data related to atmospheric change since the 1950's. The undisturbed air, remote location, and minimal influences of vegetation and human activity at MLO are ideal for monitoring constituents in the atmosphere that can cause climate change. The observatory is part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) - Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL) - Global Monitoring Division (GMD).
We have confidence that the CO2 measurements made at the Mauna Loa Observatory reflect truth about our global atmosphere. The main reasons for that confidence are:
The Observatory near the summit of Mauna Loa, at an altitude of 3400 meters (~ 11,100 feet), is well situated to measure air masses that are representative of very large areas.
All of the measurements are rigorously and very frequently calibrated.
Ongoing comparisons of independent measurements at the same site allow an estimate of the accuracy, which is generally better than 0.2 ppm.
The Latest Measurements of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide at the Mauna Loa Monitoring Station
Week beginning on April 10, 2016: 408.69 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago: 404.10 ppm Weekly value from 10 years ago: 384.93 ppm
If anyone wants a comprehensive online "read" about Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and the Greenhouse Effect, you can't go wrong with this PDF-format "NASA Press Kit"..........
Thanks again for the data. But it should not be so complicated that a simple answer can address a simple question. The endless production of research data is of not real benefit unless it is being use to support a position. The fact that I have 2 truckloads of paper does not prove my position simply because the average person has not the time to read all of it. Likewise, it is irrelevant to a conversation when inconsistencies in the data are pointed out and the response is to claim the "bias" of the question justifies ignoring it.
There are very simple contradictions in the research, data and opinion of the so call "scientific consensus" that get blown off and ignored instead of answered. Having 5 guys at a table tell the sixth guy that he should get his eyesight because the sky is actually purple may be humors, but just because he pauses to consider the majority being wrong doesn't prove he's gullible or slow.
CO2 is a gas - that fact goes beyond consensus, it's a fact. While gases do have unique behaviors, they all follow the same laws of physics. Chemicals can only exist in solid, liquid or gas states. The state of a gas depends on atmospheric pressure and Temperature.
So why did I ask the simple question - Temperature and Pressure matter.
and yes, there is a measurable concentration within the atmosphere of earth that contains most of the available CO2 in the air. Likewise, terrestrial CO2 concentrations can be (have been) measured. In both measurements CO2 always conforms to it's own nature by responding to it's environment in very specific (predictable) ways. Now as for my source : Your Chosen Data
[This message has been edited by jmclemore (edited 04-24-2016).]
Originally posted by jmclemore: Thanks again for the data. But it should not be so complicated that a simple answer can address a simple question. The endless production of research data is of not real benefit unless it is being use to support a position. The fact that I have 2 truckloads of paper does not prove my position simply because the average person has not the time to read all of it. Likewise, it is irrelevant to a conversation when inconsistencies in the data are pointed out and the response is to claim the "bias" of the question justifies ignoring it.
There are very simple contradictions in the research, data and opinion of the so call "scientific consensus" that get blown off and ignored instead of answered. Having 5 guys at a table tell the sixth guy that he should get his eyesight because the sky is actually purple may be humors, but just because he pauses to consider the majority being wrong doesn't prove he's gullible or slow.
CO2 is a gas - that fact goes beyond consensus, it's a fact. While gases do have unique behaviors, they all follow the same laws of physics. Chemicals can only exist in solid, liquid or gas states. The state of a gas depends on atmospheric pressure and Temperature.
So why did I ask the simple question - Temperature and Pressure matter.
and yes, there is a measurable concentration within the atmosphere of earth that contains most of the available CO2 in the air. Likewise, terrestrial CO2 concentrations can be (have been) measured. In both measurements CO2 always conforms to it's own nature by responding to it's environment in very specific (predictable) ways. Now as for my source : Your Chosen Data
I am still unclear on why you were asking about the spatial distribution of CO2 in the atmosphere; particularly the vertical aspect of it (altitude).
I don't see where you "are going" with that last paragraph.
Maybe you could reword this?
I wanted to post more promptly, but I had a problem with my desktop unit.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-24-2016).]
I am still unclear on why you were asking about the spatial distribution of CO2 in the atmosphere; particularly the vertical aspect of it (altitude).
I don't see where you "are going" with that last paragraph.
Maybe you could reword this?
I wanted to post more promptly, but I had a problem with my desktop unit.
My point is straight forward. 1. CO2 in it's gas form has predictable behaviors. (true) 2. CO2 responds elevation/Altitude differently. (true) 3. CO2 causes Atmospheric Temperatures to Increase. (true & false)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Would you say CO2 as a gas will get equally distributed throughout a house with ceiling fans running?
If carbon dioxide were flowing into a home, should the family crawl to the closest exit or fresh source of air?
Which 1 of these 2 forms of CO2 production is worse for the environment? (temporarily granting the argument that CO2 is harmful to the environment) 1. Internal Combustion of carbon based fuels. 2. Naturally occurring forest fires and volcanic eruptions. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is a math geek's way of saying that there are those people who cross over group boundaries. Some scientists have become advocates for one kind of policy direction or another, without giving up their "day jobs" as scientists. But on the whole, I think the idea of these three "kind of" separate groups is sensible as a first approximation.
